Oct
31

Making waves

Phil on October 31st, 2008

I sent a letter off to my state representative and state senator yesterday (CCd to both Denver papers and the Coloradoan in hopes it’ll light a fire under somebody).  If you recall, I’m a little bit sick and tired of political telemarketing calls, so I decided to try and do something about it.  The text of my letter follows.  If anyone cares to take it and adapt it into their own letter to their state officials, you have my blessing and encouragement.

 

Representative Fischer, Senator Bacon.

Sirs,

As this election season draws to a much-appreciated end, I’d like to bring the state of the “Colorado do not call” list into your view.

The short version of my statement is that I’d feel very appreciative if you would consider and introduce legislation to remove the exemption for calls…

(V) Made for the sole purpose of urging support for or opposition to a political candidate or ballot issue; or 

(VI) Made for the sole purpose of conducting political polls or soliciting the expression of opinions, ideas, or votes.

… as presently provided for in state law.

I believe that this exemption is a self-serving loophole in the law at best and a costly, ethically-questionable loophole at worst.

I, like a growing number of people, have a cell phone as my primary (and, in fact, _only_) telephone device.  Consequently, every call that I receive costs me money.  Knowing this, my cell phone number is registered with both the State and National do-not-call registries.

During this election season, I have received an unprecedented number of unsolicited telemarketing calls to my cell phone.  A large portion of them had incorrect or missing caller-ID information; a large portion of them were “dead-air” robo-calls; a number of them came rather late at night.  In all cases, these calls cost me money.

If these calls were made by an average business, they would be unlawful on several counts.

Unfortunately, these are all calls and seeming violations of the law against which I have no recourse due to the loophole my elected officials chose to write into state law.

I will estimate that I’ve received a hundred politically-oriented unsolicited telemarketing calls in the past month.  It costs me $0.075 to answer my phone to discover that I have wasted my time answering the phone – I have a typically average plan: my per-minute rate works out to $0.075 and my phone provider charges me a minimum of 1 minute per call.  

That’s roughly $7.50 that this loophole has directly cost me this election season.  Not money to break the bank, but allow me to put it into perspective that voters understand.

$7.50, gentlemen, is far larger than my share of most of the tax hikes that have been on the ballot in recent years.  People rail against an extra $0.02 on a $10 meal – that’s really small change compared to $7.50 over the span of a few months of calls.  I suspect that if the math were publicized that there’d be quite an uproar about it considering how worked up the public gets over a piddly $0.02-a-meal hike.

 

Gentlemen: if you truly believe our government to be “of the people, by the people and ” – above all – “for the people”, you can certainly prove it by removing an exemption that sets you, as politicians, above the rest of the people at the cost of the people.

 

-phil

Tags: , ,

Uncategorized Subscribe to RSS feed

5 Responses to “Making waves”

  1. Steven Brady says:
    31 October, 2008 at 10:16 am

    Oh, that’s most excellent. I’d love to actually hear a response.

  2. Phil says:
    31 October, 2008 at 10:23 am

    Thanks – I thought it was a pretty good email, myself.
    That aside, “Ask and ye shall receive”, my dear Mr. Brady. I got a response from Sen. Bacon this morning:

    Phil-

    You raise a good point. I was not aware that unsolicited calls are made to cell phones –particularly unlisted numbers. I do believe that “do not call” lists should be just that –do not call. I will investigate whether we can introduce legislation to prevent calls, particularly which result in additional charges to cell phone users. There has been some information in the past in which prohibition of such calls violates “free speech” which includes political calls. Let me investigate and get back to you soon.

    Bob

    I sent a reply back:

    Thank you for your response, Bob.

    I’ve heard the same objection raised before, but I must admit that I fail to see how “Hi, would you be interested in aluminum siding?” is less worthy of protection than “Hi, did you know that Betsy Markey eats babies and that Marylin Musgrave once dated Hitler?”

    Both types of calls are trying to sell me something, so I’d have a hard time accepting classifying one as “unprotected commercial speech” and the other as “protected free speech”.

    If nothing else, I see no reason why these calls should be exempt from the requirement to provide unblocked and accurate caller-ID information.

    • Steven Brady says:
      4 November, 2008 at 12:53 pm

      I’m very excited to see you’ve received two responses. I’m quite interested in seeing how far this communication goes, and if any party you’ve contacted can or will attempt to change this.

      And the “Hi, did you know that Betsy Markey eats babies and that Marylin Musgrave once dated Hitler?” made me LOL. :)

      • Phil says:
        4 November, 2008 at 1:03 pm

        The vitriol that’s been spewed in that race is unbelievable. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen its equal.

        Musgrave asked to speak at our church a few weeks ago and oh my LORD but you would not believe the complete and utter shitstorm that ensued. We ended up having one uniformed cop obviously present that Sunday, another sheriff’s office deputy packing in plain clothes, large men standing at each of the auditorium doors…

        As to the responses from Bacon & Fischer, it should duly be mentioned that both of these men are, in fact, up for reelection today. Feel free to interpret their responses in light of that.

  3. Phil says:
    3 November, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    I just got a reply from Rep. Fischer, too:

    Dear Mr. Mills,

    Thanks so much for your e-mail regarding Colorado’s “Do-not-call” list. I appreciate your taking the time to contact me about this. I agree with you that the number of automated political phone calls this year has been over the top! All of your points are well taken. As an elected official, I shouldn’t be afforded any special privileges. After this unprecedented election is over, it would certainly be appropriate to revisit the exemptions contained in the current law and consider some needed changes. The legislature needs to listen carefully and respectfully to the concerns of people like you because I know you speak for many others who haven’t taken the time to contact us. My one hope is that elected representatives can maintain the ability to contact our constituents by phone in the conduct of legitimate legislative work. But all the abuses of this privilege put our use of this important tool in jeopardy.

    Thanks, again, for taking the time to contact me about this.

    Best wishes,

    Randy Fischer, State Representative